Hacker News Reader

Comment by norikki | Hacker News Reader

Take heart. Nothing any president was going to do would have affected the climate. Renewable energy is great, but its not replacing fossil fuels this century, and no one is shutting down the world economy to stop global warming. Not Trump, not Clinton, not Xi. No one. Either global warming is real and we will all be wiped out by hurricanes, or its not and the money we do spend on it will be wasted fighting a harmless gas, while many real environmental problems go unchecked.

View on HN

You act as if climate change is not a real issue. While I agree (to a point) that no single person is "shutting down the world economy to stop global warming," that doesn't detract from the capability Trump has---as the president of the second largest carbon-emitting country---to do damage to the world's long-term well-being. There's a lot that can be done to improve the world's environmental situation besides just implementing renewable energy, and by denying that there is a problem, Trump can damage environmental efforts on all fronts. (For more info on that, look at the predicted damage to coastlines due to sea-level rise; it's coming regardless of whether or not it's acknowledged and people can choose to prepare or they can let their kids deal with it.) Not to mention that clean energy is a massively growing industry and there is no need to shut down the world economy to continue to make a positive impact.

As far as I'm concerned, even entertaining the possibility that efforts to counteract climate change are wasteful is a denial of scientific fact and a selfish, careless way to look at a planet that will suffer most immediately during your children or grandchildren's lives.

"Renewable energy is great, but its not replacing fossil fuels this century"

That got me thinking about how quickly primary energy sources can change (how quickly was whale oil replaced?), or how quickly industries can change (how quickly did industry change in response to the Clean Air Act of 1970?).

A century is a long time. What are you basing your statement on?

Renewables have already supplanted coal:

http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-its...

China is leading in increases of renewable energy:

https://edgylabs.com/2016/11/10/renewable-energy-growth-iea-...

Granted, this isn't the entire picture. If I had information pro or con this, I'd provide it. Though renewables overtaking one of the fossil fuel sources is pretty significant, as is one of the largest populations leading growth in renewable use. If you have information supporting the idea that renewables won't be over at least, say, 60% of global energy production by the end of 2099, please share. I'm flexible on the 60% as well. What number would you consider "replacement"?

Wow, the trump train reached HN.

Note to myself: Do not engage in political or economic discussions on HN. It is not a save space and one should not expect scientific maturity from its readers.

"Do not engage in political or economic discussions on HN." --agreed

"It is not a save space and one should not expect scientific maturity from its readers." -- these types of sneering comments are a reason why trump won

You are right, that was unthoughtful.

However it is sometimes hard to keep your Zen when so many internet discussion forums are undermined by alt-right propaganda.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com